Should cigarettes be banned?

[Paradoxical]

Poll question: Should cigarettes be banned?

I'm a smoker. I wish I was not a smoker. I see no benefits from smoking except to alleviate stress that should be relieved in a more constructive, safer manner.

So the question, to me, comes down to whether or not it has a tangible benefit. Well, does it? I don't think so.

And it should be pretty obvious that smoking has a laundry list of bad consequences and could ultimately lead to your demise.

One may add that smoking is not the issue and that smoking on a regular basis is the issue. Just like drinking is not problematic. While being an alcoholic certainly is a problem.

Well I don't buy that argument. Cigarettes are designed to get you addicted. It's very difficult to be a casual user.

In fact, I'd consider cigarettes more dangerous than most of the illicit substances we hear about. Simply because cigarettes are not designed to be recreational. They are designed to be part of a habit.

[Bonobo]

1. May I recommend you start a circumcision thread as well? nt

[Annata4Peace]

13. Dont ban cigs. Make nicotine a class 1 substance.

Force cig manufactures to make their product without one of the most addictive substances in history. Over time this will reduce the number of smokers.

[reggie the dog]

22. what about simply letting adults use whatever drugs they want

my body is mine why cant i put what i want into it?

[WatsonT]

19. Make one or the other mandatory

you can smoke, but not have a circumcision. Or you can get snipped but never be allowed to smoke.

It's the only fair way to settle this.

[lpbk2713]

2. A tremendous shortfall in tax revenue would have to be made up elsewhere.

Smokers pay a lot of taxes for their addiction. This is why the
powers that be would never eliminate tobacco products entirely.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. Besdies, Prohibitions Work When?

Alcohol? Nope. A disaster that made multimillionaires out of criminals and corrupted thousands of public servants.

Drug War: Ditto, except more millionire criminals and those at the top are Billionaires.

Abotions: Dirty doctors, women dying of septic shock, and all at higher cost.

Prohibiting things that are lifestyle/behaviorally related, no matter the "good" intentions, has proven iatotropic time and time again.
GAC

[octothorpe]

4. Would you say cigarettes are made addictive because they serve no practical use to the user?

Seems to be the gist of your first sentence, right? I don't smoke so I can't really say.

Anyway, I tend to lean toward no, because I'm not a fan of people telling others what they can do with their personal life. However, smoking is unique in that it does indirectly affect a large number of people through second hand smoke. But then again, a meth user or a violent drunk can directly affect those in their immediate area too. Other the hand, illegality of various drugs now and throughout time have caused more harm than the drugs themselves would have caused. We just have to look at the drug cartels now and the mobs during the 1920's prohibition to see how such laws only serve to support criminal elements (and larger budgets for law enforcement agencies fighting them).


I dunno, I might be wrong, but it seems to me that banning them would ultimately cause more harm than good.

[Mimosa]

5. Banning marijuana or alcohol never meant people couldn/t get them

Prohibition created profitable illegal markets.

[ReggieVeggie]

6. yes

if marijuana is illegal, then cigarettes and alcohol should be as well

[jberryhill]

15. Because consistent stupidity is preferable to inconsistency

[ReggieVeggie]

30. so, let's just ban everything?

Is that what you mean?

[AlabamaLibrul]

16. I like you, but I'm not a fan of if/thens

I'd prefer to see sensible policy applied to all substances, with a focus on public health and safety (where smoking of any substance or drinking alcohol heavily is not the greatest for your health) rather than the opposite.

[ReggieVeggie]

29. that's where I was going

Given the dangers of tobacco and alcohol, having any other drug banned makes no sense. Nothing should be banned. It just generates desire and a black market.

[Marrah_G]

7. I am a former smoker

As much as I wish they never existed, I see no value into criminalizing yet ANOTHER plant. Our jails are full enough already. I would like to see chemicals being added to the tobacco made illegal.

[Uben]

8. HELL NO!

Why do people want to control others lives? Ban this, make this illegal, you can't do this, you can't do that. I hate cigarettes, but I hate people's need to control others even more. Get the fuck outta my bedroom , get the fuck outta my body, and get the fuck outta my town! I'm gonna do what I want to no matter what the fuck the prudes want, as long as I am hurting no one else.

What the fuck is it that makes people want to control others? I have always been a rebel against the establishment. It's always been the religious who want to control what people do. Religion is all about money and control of morals, and has nothing to do with the imaginary beings these people worship. Kiss my motherfucking ass!

[HockeyMom]

9. Want the Food Police also?

Some people would like to see that too.

[elias49]

10. I'd like to see television banned

also addictive (and designed to be)

hard for most people to be casual viewers

coerces people to spend more money than they can afford to spend on consumer products, leading directly to ill health through overspending on non-essentials

does TV have any tangible benefits? Well does it? I don't think so.

BAN TELEVISION!!

[Warren Stupidity]

11. no. light em if you got em

[Obamanaut]

12. People, especially reasonably intelligent people, should know better than to start smoking.

I recently re-watched a war movie made in the 1940s. In it one of thecharacters described cigarettes as 'coffin nails', so even back then people knew there were hazards involved in the use of tobacco products.

Since then there have been numerous studies published about those hazards that affect not only the user, but those around that user as well.

There is much anecdotal evidence about the cost of smoking tobacco, the difficulty involved in quitting, the cost of the products involved in quitting. Despite all this evidence - scientific and anecdotal - some people still start smoking, even saying things like "...cigarettes are designed to get you addicted..."

Why does a reasonably intelligent person not take advantage of all the information available, and choose not to smoke? Perhaps the answer is that folks who begin smoking, despite the known and suspected hazards, are not among that group of reasonably intelligent.

[liberal N proud]

14. Since one is allowed to kill themselves, smoking is allowed

But the secondhand smoke could be contributing the the death of others which would classify as murder then if you want to smoke, go in a room alone and smoke up a storm.

Just don't think it is OK to blow it in my face in a restaurant or as I leave the building because you are not allowed to smoke inside.

[eilen]

26. I agree with the smoking inside but people should be allowed

to smoke outside. You breathe in car exhaust too but don't propose banning private car transport or interstate trucking because you use it. One thing I don't understand is banning ecigarettes in public places/private businesses like restaurants.

[Lance_Boyle]

35. Suicide is illegal in most (all) of the US. n/t

[blueamy66]

17. I voted "other"

Smoke your lungs out....just don't blow that smoke in my face.

[meow2u3]

18. Criminalizing tobacco possession is downright riduculous and counterproductive

Just because tobacco/nicotine is addictive doesn't mean we should legislate against its possession, use, and sale. It won't get rid of tobacco use; it'll only push it underground and create a new criminal underclass: smokers, vapers, and other users of nicotine (I primarily use e-cigs), and the gangs that would deal in cigs. You're obviously forgetting that we're adults: we have the right to smoke, and with that right comes the responsibility of suffering the consequences of our choices.

There's a difference between the behavior of smokers as opposed to users of illicit drugs. I don't know of many smokers would would steal, rob at the point of a weapon, or kill to support a nicotine habit, but then again, I know of many people who raid ashtrays in search of partially smoked cigs left behind by others. I doubt that nicotine impairs driving, but I do know firsthand that nicotine withdrawal can cause driving mistakes.

On the other hand, I personally know many drug addicts who steal, rob, or even attack others unprovoked while under the influence of illicit drugs and/or alcohol. One guy I know (but don't particularly like) was arrested for auto theft while high on "wet" (cigs or joints dipped in formaldehyde or PCP).

[Capitalocracy]

37. You don't know anyone who would kill or rob for tobacco?

Try making it illegal and raising the price to $100 a pack.

[WatsonT]

20. No

Users know the risk at this point. As long as they're adults I don't see an issue.

[slackmaster]

21. No, AND all taxes on tobacco products should be eliminated

Having government depend on sales of a harmful product for revenue creates a moral dilemma.

[LeftishBrit]

23. No.

I agree with you about the dangers of smoking; but prohibition, as with alcohol in the past and other drugs, would just swell the prison population with yet more nonviolent people, and would make some gangsters very rich.

Bad health habits are bad health habits; crimes are crimes; equating the two rarely has good effects.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

24. Cigarettes are not designed to be recreational?

They can still be recreational. Roll your own. Roll your own with only trusted tobacco.

The problem with CIGco is they add so much junk in the cigarettes you get addicted. Nicotine is not the only thing to addicted too. No telling what else is in them.

[Better Believe It]

25. I assume the advocates of banning cigarettes also favor banning pot.

Shall we arrest the users of both?

[Paradoxical]

27. I actually don't want pot banned. I want most drugs to be legal.

But it seems to me that cigarettes are responsible for a clear and massive number of deaths every year.

Maybe I'm not thinking it through. But I consider cigarettes worse than pretty much all other drugs out there. Other than probably heroin, meth and (possibly) cocaine.

[former9thward]

39. You say you want "most drugs to be legal"

Since you apparently want cigarettes banned and you say heroin, meth and coke to be worse, then what drugs are left that you want legal? I believe all those should be legal and regulated in the same manner as cigarettes and alcohol are now. Cigarettes do relieve stress in many people. If there were a safer and easier way to do it people would. They don't. If cigarettes were to be banned on account of death and disease then alcohol would have to be banned too as it causes death and disease too.

[Iggo]

28. Sure why not.

[OwnedByFerrets]

31. Until marijuana is legal?

[piedmont]

32. Why is it so hard to understand that prohibition doesn't work?

:banghead:

[Johonny]

33. No, goverment should regulate

The government should regulate the industry like any other. They make sure consumers know exactly what they are buying and it's relative safety. As for drug additives intentionally placed in the product, they should be treated to FDA drug regulations and restricted as any other drug would in the system. I agree with the opinion "Cigarettes are designed to get you addicted" and the government has a role in insuring consumers products are not intentionally laced with additive substances for profit generation. Would a total ban on the industry work? Does it ever? But the industry should have regulations the same as any industry.

[RebelOne]

34. Why would I choose that cigarettes be banned? I am a smoker. n/t

[japple]

36. Hell, yes. Then I would never be tempted to start smoking AGAIN.

eom

[Capitalocracy]

38. If you want logical consistency in our laws, yes.

Or make marijuana legal. One or the other.

I prefer just making weed legal.

[upi402]

40. NO, and I never smoked. n/t